[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Narendra Singh @ Munna vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 9 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:16347-DB
Digitally
signed by
ANURADHA NAFR
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.04.10
10:37:25
+0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1323 of 2021
Narendra Singh @ Munna S/o Shivmangal Singh Aged About 50 Years
Residnet Of Village Bhelkachchh, Police Station Ramkola, District
Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Ramkola, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Rahul Mishra, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Deputy Government
Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
09.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant as well
as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate,
appearing for the State/respondent.
2. Today, though the criminal appeal has been listed for hearing on
I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant, however, with the consent of learned counsel
for the parties, the appeal is heard finally as the appellant is in jail
since 27.03.2020.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the appellant, stands disposed of.
4. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
"Cr.P.C.") is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 30.09.2021, passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur (C.G.) in
Sessions Trial No.03/2021, whereby the appellant-accused has
been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of
fine amount, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment
for six months.
5. The prosecution case, as unfolded before the Trial Court, is that
on 27.03.2020, the complainant Ram Singh (PW-9) lodged an
information at Police Station Ramkola stating that at about 09:00
AM, while he was engaged in his routine work, a minor girl aged
about 3 years, daughter of his cousin brother Bokha alias
Ramhulas, came crying and informed him that her father was
being assaulted by someone. Upon receiving this information, the
complainant, along with Surendra Singh (PW-10), immediately
rushed to the house of his cousin brother Bokha alias Ramhulas.
Upon reaching the spot, they found that Bokha alias Ramhulas
was lying dead in the courtyard of his house with bleeding injuries
on his head. Near the place of occurrence, a tangi (axe), a knife
and a bamboo stick were found lying. Subsequently, Rajkunwar
(PW-1), mother of Surendra Singh, disclosed that the accused
Narendra Singh @ Munna had earlier quarrelled with the
deceased and had taken away paddy from him while hurling
abuses, and had also threatened that he would kill him. On the
date of incident, the accused came to the house of the deceased,
abused him and assaulted him with a tangi, causing his death,
and thereafter fled from the spot.
6. On the basis of the said information given by Ram Singh (PW-9),
a First Information Report (Ex.P/12) was registered at Police
Station Ramkola against the accused Narendra Singh @ Munna
for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and
the matter was taken up for investigation. During the course of
investigation, the Investigating Agency prepared the spot map
(Ex.P/8), inquest report (Ex.P/10), and seized blood-stained soil
and other articles from the place of occurrence vide seizure memo
(Ex.P/11). The weapon of offence, i.e., tangi, was seized vide
Ex.P/5 pursuant to memorandum statement (Ex.P/4) of the
accused. The dead body was sent for post-mortem examination,
and the post-mortem report (Ex.P/1-A) indicated that the death
was homicidal in nature due to head injuries. The accused was
arrested vide arrest memo (Ex.P/6), and the seized articles were
sent for chemical examination (Ex.P/3).
7. After completion of investigation and other formalities, charge-
sheet (Ex.P/20) was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Pratappur, which was registered as Criminal Case
No.104/2020. Thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions and registered as Sessions Trial No. 03/2021. The Trial
Court framed charge against the accused under Section 302 IPC.
The charge was read over and explained to the accused, who
abjured guilt and pleaded false implication. He, however, did not
lead any defence evidence.
8. In order to bring home the charge, the prosecution examined as
many as 13 witnesses, namely, Rajkunwar (PW-1), Chhotu Ram
(PW-2), Sonu (PW-3), Dharmjeet (PW-4), Dr. A.K. Vishwakarma
(PW-5), Ravishankar Kindo (PW-6), Tilochan Singh (PW-7),
Sanjay Kumar Yadav (PW-8), Ram Singh (PW-9), Surendra Singh
(PW-10), Sunil Beck (PW-11), Nirmal Prasad Rajwade (PW-12)
and Prabhunarayan Singh (PW-13). The prosecution also
exhibited several documents including the spot panchnama
(Ex.P/1), post-mortem report (Ex.P/1-A), memorandum statement
(Ex.P/4), seizure of tangi (Ex.P/5), arrest memo (Ex.P/6), FIR
(Ex.P/12), and charge-sheet (Ex.P/20), among others, to
substantiate its case. In turn, in order to prove defence, appellant
neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.
9. The learned trial Court, upon a thorough appreciation of the oral
and documentary evidence brought on record, by judgment dated
30.09.2021, held the appellant guilty of the offence under Section
302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned. Aggrieved
thereby, the present criminal appeal has been preferred.
10. Mr. Rahul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that
the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2021 passed by the learned
Trial Court is wholly perverse, erroneous and contrary to the
settled principles of criminal jurisprudence, and thus liable to be
set aside. It is contended that the conviction of the appellant
under Section 302 IPC has been recorded without proper
appreciation of facts and evidence available on record. He further
submits that the very foundation of the prosecution case is
doubtful, inasmuch as the informant Ram Singh (PW-9) has
categorically deposed that he had not given any merg intimation
to the police. In absence of proper explanation regarding the
contents of merg intimation (Ex.P/7) and FIR (Ex.P/12), the
prosecution has failed to prove the authenticity and reliability of
these documents, thereby vitiating the entire prosecution story.
11. It is argued by Mr. Mishra that the alleged seizure of the weapon
of offence, i.e., axe (tangi), has not been proved in accordance
with law. The memorandum (Ex.P/4) and seizure (Ex.P/5) are not
supported by reliable independent witnesses, and thus the
recovery becomes doubtful and cannot be relied upon against the
appellant. He also submits that the conviction is based primarily
on the testimony of Rajkunwar (PW-1), who is projected as an
eye-witness; however, her statement suffers from material
contradictions and omissions, rendering her testimony unreliable.
It is contended that the Trial Court has erred in placing implicit
reliance on such shaky evidence while ignoring the settled
principle that conviction cannot be based on doubtful testimony.
12. It is next contended by Mr. Mishra that several material
prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the
prosecution and have turned hostile, and there is no cogent,
consistent and trustworthy evidence on record to establish the
guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Moreover, the
prosecution has failed to establish any motive or intention on the
part of the appellant to commit the alleged offence. In light of the
aforesaid submissions, Mr. Mishra contends that: (a) the incident
was not premeditated; (b) it occurred in the midst of a sudden
quarrel; (c) the appellant was in an inebriated condition at the time
of the occurrence; (d) the assault was a single blow; and (e) there
was no intention to cause death, though at best, knowledge may
be attributed to the appellant. It is therefore urged that the case
falls squarely within the ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the
IPC. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section
302 IPC deserves to be modified to one under Section 304 IPC
(Part I or Part II, as may be deemed appropriate).
13. On the other hand, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government
Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State, supports the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
by the learned Trial Court and submits that the same has been
passed after due appreciation of oral and documentary evidence
available on record and does not call for any interference by this
Court. He further submits that the prosecution has successfully
established the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the testimony
of Rajkunwar (PW-1), who is an eye-witness to the incident, is
cogent, reliable and inspires confidence. It is argued that minor
contradictions and omissions, if any, do not go to the root of the
matter and are natural in the testimony of witnesses.
14. It is contended by Mr. Rai that the medical evidence duly
corroborates the ocular version, and the post-mortem report
clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal
in nature. The recovery of the weapon of offence pursuant to the
memorandum statement of the accused further strengthens the
prosecution case. He next submits that merely because some
witnesses have turned hostile, the entire prosecution case does
not fail, particularly when the testimony of key witnesses remains
intact and trustworthy. It is further submitted that the motive,
though not essential in cases of direct evidence, has also been
sufficiently indicated in the present case. Therefore, it is urged
that the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based on
proper appreciation of evidence, and the conviction of the
appellant under Section 302 IPC is well-founded and deserves to
be affirmed.
15. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,
considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also
went through the records with utmost circumspection.
16. The first question for consideration before this Court is
whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature ?
17. In this regard, the prosecution has examined Dr. A.K.
Vishwakarma (PW-5), who was posted as Medical Officer at
Government Hospital, Pratappur, and who conducted the post-
mortem examination on the body of the deceased Bokha alias
Ramhulas on 27.03.2020. The witness has deposed that the dead
body was brought for post-mortem examination by Constable
Sunil Beck (PW-11) along with a requisition issued by the Station
House Officer, Police Station Ramkola, and was identified by the
accompanying witnesses, namely Ram Singh (PW-9) and others.
The doctor stated that the deceased was an adult male of
average build. At the time of examination, rigor mortis was present
and the body was in a state consistent with recent death. The face
was stained with blood, and bleeding was noticed from the nose
and ears.
18. On external examination, the doctor found multiple injuries on the
head of the deceased. There was a lacerated wound on the scalp,
and the face was smeared with blood. The nature and position of
the injuries clearly indicated use of considerable force. The
injuries were located on vital parts of the body, particularly the
head, which is a vulnerable region.
19. On internal examination, PW-5 found a 27 cm long temporo-
parietal bilateral horizontal fracture of the skull. There was
subarachnoid haemorrhage and significant damage to the brain
parenchyma. The internal findings revealed extensive trauma to
the cranial region, consistent with a forceful assault. Other internal
organs were found to be relatively normal, thereby ruling out any
natural cause of death.
20. Dr. A.K. Vishwakarma (PW-5) further deposed that the injuries
were caused by a hard and blunt object, and he opined that the
cause of death was neurogenic shock resulting from the head
injuries. He categorically stated that the nature of death was
homicidal. The post-mortem report (Ex.P/1-A), bearing his
signature, has been duly proved by him. He also ruled out the
possibility of such injuries being caused by an accidental fall on a
hard surface.
21. The testimony of PW-5 has remained unshaken in cross-
examination, and no material contradiction or infirmity could be
elicited by the defence. No contrary medical evidence has been
adduced to discredit his opinion. Thus, the medical evidence on
record conclusively establishes that the death of the deceased
Bokha alias Ramhulas was homicidal in nature.
22. From the cumulative appreciation of the medical as well as ocular
evidence available on record, it is clearly established that the
deceased sustained severe head injuries caused by a forceful
assault with a hard and blunt object. The injuries were inflicted on
a vital part of the body and were sufficient in the ordinary course
of nature to cause death. The nature, location and extent of
injuries, coupled with the internal cranial damage and
haemorrhage, completely rule out any possibility of accidental or
self-inflicted injuries. Though the defence attempted to suggest an
accidental fall, the same stands categorically negated by the
medical expert.
23. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the consistent, cogent and
reliable medical evidence supported by ocular testimony, this
Court finds no infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned
Trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in
nature. The finding recorded by the Trial Court is based on proper
appreciation of evidence and is hereby affirmed.
24. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the
accused-appellant is the perpetrator of the crime in question.
25. In order to establish the involvement of the appellant in the
commission of the offence, the prosecution has primarily relied
upon the testimony of the alleged eyewitness Rajkunwar (PW-1),
along with the supporting evidence of other prosecution
witnesses, namely Chhotu Ram (PW-2), Sonu Agariya (PW-3),
Dharmjeet Agariya (PW-4), Tilochan Singh (PW-7), Sanjay Kumar
Yadav (PW-8), Ram Singh (PW-9), Surendra Singh (PW-10), and
the Investigating Officer Nirmal Prasad Rajwade (PW-12). The
prosecution has further placed reliance upon the memorandum
statement of the accused, recovery of the weapon (axe), and the
medical evidence adduced by Dr. A.K. Vishwakarma (PW-5).
26. Rajkunwar (PW-1), projected as the sole eyewitness, deposed
that on the date of incident at about 09:00 AM, the accused
Narendra Singh @ Munna came to the house of the deceased
Bokha @ Bokha alias Ramhulas and assaulted him with an axe
on account of a dispute relating to return of paddy. She stated that
the accused inflicted blows on the head of the deceased and
thereafter fled from the spot. However, in her cross-examination,
she admitted that her house was situated at a distance of about
25-30 meters from the house of the deceased and that the
courtyard of the deceased was surrounded by a wooden fence.
She further admitted that she could not clearly see the actual
assault and that her statement regarding the assault was based
on assumption. Though she attempted to clarify that the house of
the deceased was visible from her house and that she could hear
the conversation, her testimony suffers from material
inconsistencies and does not inspire full confidence as a wholly
reliable eyewitness account.
27. The other witnesses, namely PW-2 Chhotu Ram, PW-3 Sonu
Agariya, PW-4 Dharmjeet Agariya, and PW-10 Surendra Singh,
have admitted that the courtyard of the deceased was enclosed
by a wooden fencing made of bamboo and wood. Their evidence
indicates that visibility into the courtyard from outside was not
entirely clear, thereby creating doubt regarding the ability of PW-1
to have witnessed the incident in the manner alleged. Moreover,
no other independent eyewitness has supported the prosecution
version regarding the actual assault.
28. The prosecution has further relied upon the memorandum
statement of the accused (Ex.P/4) and the recovery of an axe
pursuant thereto vide seizure memo (Ex.P/5), which has been
supported by PW-7 Tilochan Singh and PW-8 Sanjay Kumar
Yadav. Though both witnesses have supported the factum of
seizure, PW-7 admitted in cross-examination that the contents of
the memorandum were not read over to him and that he signed
the document at the instance of the police without fully
understanding it. Such admission casts a shadow on the sanctity
of the memorandum proceedings, though not sufficient in itself to
discard the recovery altogether.
29. The Investigating Officer PW-12 Nirmal Prasad Rajwade has
deposed regarding the seizure of blood-stained soil, plain soil,
axe, bamboo stick, and other articles from the spot vide Ex.P/11.
He has also stated that the seized articles were sent for chemical
examination. The FSL report, though not formally exhibited, forms
part of the record and indicates presence of human blood on
several seized articles including the axe. However, it is pertinent
to note that the Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination,
admitted that no visible blood stains were found on the seized axe
at the time of seizure, which creates a doubt regarding the link
between the weapon and the crime.
30. The medical evidence of Dr. A.K. Vishwakarma (PW-5)
establishes that the deceased sustained a severe head injury
resulting in a temporo-parietal fracture and subarachnoid
haemorrhage, leading to neurogenic shock and death. The doctor
opined that such injuries could be caused by a hard and blunt
object like an axe. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the
nature of injuries but does not conclusively connect the appellant
with the infliction of such injuries in absence of wholly reliable
ocular evidence.
31. From the cumulative appreciation of the evidence on record, it
emerges that the prosecution case hinges substantially on the
testimony of PW-1 Rajkunwar, whose presence and ability to
witness the incident is rendered doubtful in view of her own
admissions regarding distance, obstruction, and assumption. The
supporting witnesses do not provide direct evidence of assault,
and the recovery of weapon, though a relevant circumstance, is
not free from doubt. In such circumstances, though the homicidal
death of the deceased stands established, the evidence led by the
prosecution falls short of proving beyond reasonable doubt that it
was the appellant who alone inflicted the fatal injury. The chain of
circumstances is not so complete as to unerringly point towards
the guilt of the appellant, and the possibility of doubt cannot be
ruled out.
32. The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for
consideration whether the case of the appellant falls within
Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, which pertains to culpable
homicide not amounting to murder, and whether, therefore, his
conviction under Section 302 IPC ought to be altered to one under
Section 304 Part-I or Part-II IPC, as contended by learned
counsel for the appellant.
33. The distinction between intention and knowledge in the context of
Sections 299 and 300 IPC is pivotal to determining the degree of
culpability. Intention connotes a conscious objective to bring about
a particular consequence, whereas knowledge signifies
awareness that a particular result is likely to ensue from the act. In
the present case, though the act of the appellant was undoubtedly
culpable, the circumstances do not establish any deliberate
intention to cause the death of his wife. However, it can safely be
inferred that the appellant was aware that his act was likely to
cause grievous harm, possibly leading to death.
34. Reverting to the factual matrix, the following circumstances
emerge as significant from the evidence on record: (i) There
existed a prior dispute between the appellant and the deceased
relating to paddy, and it has come on record that the appellant
had earlier quarrelled with the deceased and allegedly extended
threats; (ii) the incident occurred in the courtyard of the house of
the deceased in the morning hours when the appellant came to
the spot and engaged in altercation with the deceased; (iii) the
weapon allegedly used in the commission of the offence is a tangi
(axe), which is stated to have been used during the course of the
incident; (iv) the medical evidence indicates that the deceased
sustained severe head injuries, including a temporo-parietal
fracture, suggesting use of considerable force, though the exact
manner and number of blows is not free from doubt in view of
inconsistencies in ocular testimony; (v) the prosecution case
primarily rests on the testimony of a solitary witness, whose
presence and ability to clearly witness the incident is doubtful, and
no other direct eyewitness account conclusively establishes the
manner of assault; and (vi) certain material witnesses have not
supported the prosecution case and the recovery of the weapon
also suffers from procedural infirmities, thereby creating doubt
with regard to the prosecution version in its entirety.
35. In Anbazhagan v. The State Rep. by Inspector of Police, 2023
INSC 632, the Hon'ble Supreme Court elaborated the legal
parameters distinguishing intention from knowledge and clarified
that where the act is done with knowledge of likely consequences,
but without the intention to cause death, the case would
appropriately fall under Section 304 Part II IPC.
36. Similarly, in Velthepu Srinivas v. State of A.P., 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 107, the Apex Court once again emphasized that
where the assault occurs in the heat of passion, without
premeditation, and with a weapon available at the spot, the
offence is properly classified under Section 304 Part II IPC. The
Court reasoned that though the accused might possess
knowledge that the act was likely to cause death, absence of
intention to cause such consequence distinguishes it from murder
under Section 302 IPC.
37. Applying the settled principles to the present case, this Court finds
that the prosecution has failed to satisfy the foundational
requirements necessary for invoking Exception 4 to Section 300
IPC in a clear and unequivocal manner. Though there is material
to indicate that a quarrel had taken place between the appellant
and the deceased on account of a dispute relating to paddy, the
circumstances brought on record do not conclusively establish
that the occurrence was sudden, without premeditation, and in the
heat of passion so as to bring the case squarely within the ambit
of Exception 4.
38. Moreover, the nature of injuries, being multiple and on a vital part
of the body, coupled with the alleged use of a sharp-edged
weapon like a tangi (axe), casts doubt on the applicability of the
said Exception.
39. As regards the recovery and medical corroboration, it is pertinent
to note that the prosecution has relied upon the memorandum
statement (Ex.P/4) and seizure of the tangi (Ex.P/5). However, the
evidentiary value of such recovery is rendered doubtful in view of
the admissions made by the seizure witnesses, particularly that
the contents of the memorandum were not properly known to
them. Further, the Investigating Officer himself admitted that no
visible blood stains were found on the seized weapon at the time
of recovery. Although the medical evidence led by Dr. A.K.
Vishwakarma (PW-5) establishes that the death was caused by
severe head injuries inflicted by a hard and blunt object, the same
does not conclusively connect the appellant with the commission
of the crime in absence of reliable and cogent ocular evidence.
40. Cumulatively considering the entire evidence on record, it
becomes apparent that the prosecution case suffers from material
infirmities. The case primarily rests upon the testimony of
Rajkunwar (PW-1), whose presence at the scene and ability to
witness the occurrence is doubtful in view of her own admissions
regarding distance and obstruction. No other eyewitness has
supported the prosecution version regarding the actual assault.
The chain of circumstances is incomplete and does not unerringly
point towards the guilt of the appellant. In criminal jurisprudence,
suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, and the
prosecution is bound to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt. The case, therefore, squarely fell within the
ambit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, being a homicide
committed without premeditation, in a sudden fight, in the heat of
passion, and without the offender having taken undue advantage
or acted in a cruel or unusual manner. Consequently, the act of
the appellant amounted to culpable homicide not amounting to
murder, punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC.
41. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the learned
Trial Court committed a grave error in convicting the appellant
under Section 302 IPC. Having regard to the totality of the
circumstances of the case, particularly the absence of any cogent
and reliable evidence establishing motive, the doubtful nature of
the sole alleged eyewitness testimony of Rajkunwar (PW-1)
suffering from material contradictions and omissions, the lack of
clear visibility at the place of occurrence, and the failure of the
prosecution to conclusively prove the recovery of the alleged
weapon of offence (tangi) in accordance with law, it cannot be
held that the appellant acted with the intention to cause death.
However, considering the medical evidence which establishes that
the death was homicidal and that the injuries could be caused by
a hard and blunt object, it can safely be inferred that the appellant
had knowledge that such act was likely to cause death. Therefore,
the case would not fall within the ambit of Section 302 IPC, but
would be covered under Section 304 Part II IPC. Consequently,
the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC is set aside
and is substituted by a conviction under Section 304 Part II IPC.
The appeal is thus liable to be partly allowed to the extent of
modification of conviction and sentence.
42. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant has been in custody since
27.03.2020. Consequently, the appellant is convicted under
Section 304 Part II IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment
for 07 years. The sentence shall stand modified to that extent, and
the appellant shall serve out the remainder of his sentence as per
law.
43. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned trial Court under Section 302 IPC are
modified accordingly.
44. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is
undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the appellant
informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment
passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services
Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
45. Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record
be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the
Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for
necessary information and action, if any.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
